July 21, 1992           [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]






                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1098 

                                  ETHAN H., ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                           STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                [Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________
                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                 ____________________

            Judith J. Horsley on brief pro se.
            _________________
            John P.  Arnold, Attorney  General, and Stephen  J. Judge,  Senior
            _______________                         _________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________























                      Per Curiam.  This  is an appeal from  the dismissal
                      __________

            of an  action brought under 42 U.S.C.   1983.  Appellant, Dr.

            Judith J. Horsley, filed a complaint on behalf of herself and

            her  minor  son,  Ethan.    She  attacked  state  child abuse

            proceedings, alleging  that the  State of New  Hampshire, the

            New Hampshire Division for Children and Youth Services (DCYS)

            and  its employees, two state judges, and a guardian ad litem

            conspired to deprive appellants  of various federal and state

            rights.   After the dismissal  of her complaint,  Dr. Horsley

            filed  a notice of appeal,  signed only by  herself, in which

            she purported to  appeal on behalf of herself and  Ethan.  In

            an order,  we requested  the parties  to brief  the threshold

            question  whether  Dr. Horsley  could  represent  her son  on

            appeal.

                      We now hold that Dr. Judith Horsley, acting pro se,
                                                                  ___ __

            may not  represent her son in  this appeal.  See  28 U.S.C.  
                                                         ___

            1654 ("the  parties  may plead  and conduct  their own  cases

            personally  or  by  counsel")  (emphasis  added).    We  have
            __________      ___________

            interpreted  this   statute  as  barring  a  non-lawyer  from

            representing  anyone  else  but  himself  or  herself.    See
                                                                      ___

            Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir.
            _______________    ______________

            1982); see  also Lewis  v. Lenc-Smith Manufacturing  Co., 784
                   ___  ____ _____     _____________________________

            F.2d 829, 830-31 (7th Cir. 1986) (per curiam) (individual may

            only appear  on appeal pro  se or  through counsel;  striking
                                   ___  __

            appearance  of non-lawyer); Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729
                                        __________    ______________



                                         -2-















            F.2d  831, 834  & n.7  (D.C. Cir.  1984) (non-lawyer  may not

            appear on behalf of others on appeal).

                      We  also note  that the  same rule  holds true  for

            district  court  proceedings.   See  Osei-Afriyie v.  Medical
                                            ___  ____________     _______

            College of Pennsylvania, 937 F.2d 876, 882-83 (3d Cir. 1991)
            _______________________

            (non-lawyer parent,  appearing pro se, may  not represent his
                                           ___ __

            child  in federal  court  trial); Cheung  v. Youth  Orchestra
                                              ______     ________________

            Foundation of Buffalo, 906 F.2d 59, 61-62 (2d Cir.  1990) (a
            _____________________

            non-attorney  parent  must  be  represented  by counsel  when

            bringing  an  action on  behalf of  his  or her  child; court

            remanded case  to district  court to allow  parent to  retain

            lawyer or  request appointment of counsel  for child); Meeker
                                                                   ______

            v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986)  (per curiam)
               _______

            (court  of  appeals  upheld   district  court's  ruling  that

            although parent  had the right  to represent himself,  he did

            not have the right to represent his children).  Thus, Ethan's

            claims are not before us on appeal.

                      As for Dr. Horsley's allegations, we have carefully

            reviewed the record and  the briefs on appeal, and  we affirm

            the  district court's  judgment for  essentially the  reasons

            stated in  the magistrate judge's report  and recommendation.

            The district court judge adopted the report when it dismissed

            the  complaint.   We  only  add  that Dr.  Horsley's  amended

            complaint also fails to  state a claim upon which  relief may

            be  granted.    The only  named  defendant,  DCYS,  is not  a



                                         -3-















            "person" within the meaning of   1983.  See  Will v. Michigan
                                                    ___  ____    ________

            Dep't of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70-71 (1989).
            _____________________

                      Thus, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
                               ______

            Because we have disposed of the appeal on the merits, we need

            not address the second issue raised by Dr. Horsley on appeal.











































                                         -4-